The Fit is about 200lbs lighter than the Insight. I don't know where you're getting your figures. i got my economy figure for the Insight from CD's Prius/Metro comparison. As for mileage, I know it varies by driver and fuel and weather and tire pressure and so on. The EPA mileage is a fair middle ground.
And the Civic Hybrid payback is probably more like 14 years.
I'm not so sure about that. Sure, if the hybrid system or electronics break down, the dealer is the only place to go. However, for oil changes, suspension, brakes, and everything else, the local garage can do it just as well and often better. That's pretty much the same for all cars with complex electronics. For instance, few independent garages have the equipment to troubleshoot anything on a recent BMW.
I have heard that Insight mileage is quite close to the EPA rating. Car and Driver got 38MPG. And it is no test bed car. It uses a similar hybrid design to their Civic, old Insight, and Accord. The Insight actually uses the same platform as the Fit, so the comparison is even more appropriate. I don't know where you get the idea that Honda isn't trying to make money on them. I'd hope that, after all these years of making hybrids, they're recouping their investment. Otherwise this whole hybrid thing is even more of a joke until battery technology catches up with real world needs.
I was talking about new cars, of course. Automakers don't design cars to be bought used. Even at 20,000 miles a year, your pay off date is still only around 6 years (1/3rd close for 1/3rd more miles). furthermore, if you're doing mostly freeway miles, which you must be if you're putting on 20k a year, then the payoff date actually moves further out since hybrids real advantage is in the city. A Fit on the highway will do 37 or 38 (guessing here) while an Insight driven similarly will do 43 EPA. Then you'll basically never hit the payoff. For lots of freeway miles, just get a diesel. They'll do 60mpg on the freeway, which really does move the payoff closer considering their smaller price increase over gas engines versus hybrids.
I'm talking about the initial purchase price. Many modern gasoline cars have 12-15k oil change schedules. My car is asking for one at 13k.
Yes, diesels cost less to maintain, but not by a huge margin, and just as the cost of fuel doesn't make sense except over an unmarketably long period, the long engine life is unmarketable except in the used market. The average new car buyer keeps a car for 3-5 years. Knowing that the engine will last 200k miles or more does nothing for me, especially when the transmission, suspension, electronics, and body will all likely need major work along the way, making the engine's life moot.
As far as significant options go, the Insight base has, over the base Fit, a trip computer and cruise control.
Cruise control can be added for about $500 by any mediocre mechanic. The unit alone is $300 retail, though I'm sure shopping around can find it cheaper. I added mine to one of our cars, and I'm far less capable than a mediocre mechanic.
A trip computer would be a bit less than $200, but would do more than the base computer. Most people don't use their trip computer.
Still, the break-even point is far off and questionable since fuel prices may not hit $4.00 anytime soon.
Diesels are more expensive than gas engines. Hybrids are more expensive than non-hybrids. Diesel hybrids are the most expensive of the bunch. The market just isn't willing to pay an extra 8-10k for more efficiency. As it is, hybrid buyers have to wait many years to make up the difference versus similar but non-hybrid cars.
Compare the Honda Fit to the Insight.
Insight Base MSRP 19,800 Fit Base Auto MSRP 15,550 Insight MPG 41 Fit MPG 31
Assume fuel is $4.00 (higher than now) and 15,000 miles driven per year.
So basically, assuming you keep the car, you break even when you've saved 4250 on fuel. That will take 9 years.
So say you take the 50MPG diesel and turn it into a 66MPG diesel. The amount spent on fuel each year will be much smaller in the first place, so it will take even longer to pay off the investment.
It's pretty darn clear that our brains do not work on a binary system. That's no philosophical quandary. The cognitive drugs we have are little more than luck and guessing. They may make us focus better, but they don't add intelligence.
Basically, the more complex a system, the more difficult it is to keep functioning. I believe we're more than 50 years from figuring out our brains. All the strange physics branches we don't understand probably play rolls throughout biology and more so in intelligence.
And, in 200 years, I'm sure computing power will be up to the challenge of modeling every atom in a human brain. The challenge will be modeling all the internal quantum effects and whatever else is discovered. The onion of our world has a lot more layers than people think.
Each of those cells has an immense level of complexity that we only understand a fraction of. Then they work together in ways that we're not close to understanding. Then somehow, from all this, we get minds, and we haven't a clue how.
And you're changing words on me. I said that there's no reason to think that a human can design a smarter human since it hasn't happened yet, nor is it close to happening, so there's no reason to think that a machine could do the same.
Hell, people have trouble learning to add fractions and get along with each other. Now we're supposed to design systems more intelligent than ourselves that can design systems more intelligent than themselves? We don't even have a clue how to make anything intelligent, other than by screwing. Even that's a roll of the dice.
Intelligence is like piety, it's hard to define but we pretty much know it when we see it.
And why the hell would an artificial human work tirelessly 24/7 to build a smarter artificial human? What would its motivation be? And why would they be capable of building something smarter than their self? It doesn't follow. It's possible, but it doesn't follow.
The point is, sweetie, that intelligence has no track record of designing something more intelligent than itself. There's absolutely no reason whatsoever to think that there will be an explosion of intelligence. There's never been the first iterative step, so why would there be an expectation for not only the first step but an infinite number afterward that lead to godhood? Show me one intelligent being that has designed a more intelligent being, please. I beg you.
There will be no intelligence explosion. A snail cannot design a smarter snail. Humanity has not yet designed a smarter human. Furthermore, all we know is that meat makes thinking brains. Computers just switch bits on and off, and certainly don't know what bits are or anything for that matter since they don't think.
Actually, I thought the article would say that there were Christians in one group, Muslims in the second, Hindus and everyone else in the third. Of course Jews don't count as people.
I feel dirty just thinking about that. It reminds me of the days where entire hard drives were displayed on Napster.
And you're sure you want to do that? First, it's possibly illegal. Second, it's a security nightmare. Third, you could set up a web server with an actual track record of security.
So what? It's a somewhat slow web server. It's easy, guys. If you want to leave your home machine naked to the net, use real and tested server software. If you want to do all the tasks done by Unite but easier, get cheap or free web hosting and a Facebook page.
Take a web browser. Add a web server with a few built in software bits to make building a social site possible. Ta da! A game changer! Nope, crap. Most people won't get it. Most people don't leave their computers on 24/7. Most people who do leave their computers on 24/7 and who would run services on their home machine would want something more powerful while avoiding the privacy issues. It's a lame. It's craptastic. Sorry.
Someday someone will design a true p2p social networking system. Till then, the central server will be king.
No, I just think they're never going to be able to sell it. The Opera browser has always been C- to me due to the mediocre interace. I was happy with OmniWeb for a long time. Safari was OK. Now I'm a Firefox user. I don't care about the brand.
Slashdot Mirror
The Fit is about 200lbs lighter than the Insight. I don't know where you're getting your figures. i got my economy figure for the Insight from CD's Prius/Metro comparison. As for mileage, I know it varies by driver and fuel and weather and tire pressure and so on. The EPA mileage is a fair middle ground.
And the Civic Hybrid payback is probably more like 14 years.
Because of the high-pressure fuel system, the need for stronger components due to higher compression, and the particulate filter emission system.
I'm not so sure about that. Sure, if the hybrid system or electronics break down, the dealer is the only place to go. However, for oil changes, suspension, brakes, and everything else, the local garage can do it just as well and often better. That's pretty much the same for all cars with complex electronics. For instance, few independent garages have the equipment to troubleshoot anything on a recent BMW.
I have heard that Insight mileage is quite close to the EPA rating. Car and Driver got 38MPG. And it is no test bed car. It uses a similar hybrid design to their Civic, old Insight, and Accord. The Insight actually uses the same platform as the Fit, so the comparison is even more appropriate. I don't know where you get the idea that Honda isn't trying to make money on them. I'd hope that, after all these years of making hybrids, they're recouping their investment. Otherwise this whole hybrid thing is even more of a joke until battery technology catches up with real world needs.
I was talking about new cars, of course. Automakers don't design cars to be bought used. Even at 20,000 miles a year, your pay off date is still only around 6 years (1/3rd close for 1/3rd more miles). furthermore, if you're doing mostly freeway miles, which you must be if you're putting on 20k a year, then the payoff date actually moves further out since hybrids real advantage is in the city. A Fit on the highway will do 37 or 38 (guessing here) while an Insight driven similarly will do 43 EPA. Then you'll basically never hit the payoff. For lots of freeway miles, just get a diesel. They'll do 60mpg on the freeway, which really does move the payoff closer considering their smaller price increase over gas engines versus hybrids.
By hybridizing it. See the subject: Diesel + Hybrid = Expensive.
I learned math in public schools. You must have gone to private to mess up yours so badly, Anonymous Dickwad.
Year | Fit Cost | Insight Cost | Difference
1 | $1,936.00 | $1,464.00 | 472
2 | $3,872.00 | $2,928.00 | 944
3 | $5,808.00 | $4,392.00 | 1416
4 | $7,744.00 | $5,856.00 | 1888
5 | $9,680.00 | $7,320.00 | 2360
6 | $11,616.00 | $8,784.00 | 2832
7 | $13,552.00 | $10,248.00 | 3304
8 | $15,488.00 | $11,712.00 | 3776
9 | $17,424.00 | $13,176.00 | 4248
I'm talking about the initial purchase price. Many modern gasoline cars have 12-15k oil change schedules. My car is asking for one at 13k.
Yes, diesels cost less to maintain, but not by a huge margin, and just as the cost of fuel doesn't make sense except over an unmarketably long period, the long engine life is unmarketable except in the used market. The average new car buyer keeps a car for 3-5 years. Knowing that the engine will last 200k miles or more does nothing for me, especially when the transmission, suspension, electronics, and body will all likely need major work along the way, making the engine's life moot.
As far as significant options go, the Insight base has, over the base Fit, a trip computer and cruise control.
Cruise control can be added for about $500 by any mediocre mechanic. The unit alone is $300 retail, though I'm sure shopping around can find it cheaper. I added mine to one of our cars, and I'm far less capable than a mediocre mechanic.
A trip computer would be a bit less than $200, but would do more than the base computer. Most people don't use their trip computer.
Still, the break-even point is far off and questionable since fuel prices may not hit $4.00 anytime soon.
Diesels are more expensive than gas engines. Hybrids are more expensive than non-hybrids. Diesel hybrids are the most expensive of the bunch. The market just isn't willing to pay an extra 8-10k for more efficiency. As it is, hybrid buyers have to wait many years to make up the difference versus similar but non-hybrid cars.
Compare the Honda Fit to the Insight.
Insight Base MSRP 19,800
Fit Base Auto MSRP 15,550
Insight MPG 41
Fit MPG 31
Assume fuel is $4.00 (higher than now) and 15,000 miles driven per year.
So basically, assuming you keep the car, you break even when you've saved 4250 on fuel. That will take 9 years.
So say you take the 50MPG diesel and turn it into a 66MPG diesel. The amount spent on fuel each year will be much smaller in the first place, so it will take even longer to pay off the investment.
The troll mod comes from Slashdot power-trippers.
It's pretty darn clear that our brains do not work on a binary system. That's no philosophical quandary. The cognitive drugs we have are little more than luck and guessing. They may make us focus better, but they don't add intelligence.
Basically, the more complex a system, the more difficult it is to keep functioning. I believe we're more than 50 years from figuring out our brains. All the strange physics branches we don't understand probably play rolls throughout biology and more so in intelligence.
And, in 200 years, I'm sure computing power will be up to the challenge of modeling every atom in a human brain. The challenge will be modeling all the internal quantum effects and whatever else is discovered. The onion of our world has a lot more layers than people think.
Each of those cells has an immense level of complexity that we only understand a fraction of. Then they work together in ways that we're not close to understanding. Then somehow, from all this, we get minds, and we haven't a clue how.
And you're changing words on me. I said that there's no reason to think that a human can design a smarter human since it hasn't happened yet, nor is it close to happening, so there's no reason to think that a machine could do the same.
Hell, people have trouble learning to add fractions and get along with each other. Now we're supposed to design systems more intelligent than ourselves that can design systems more intelligent than themselves? We don't even have a clue how to make anything intelligent, other than by screwing. Even that's a roll of the dice.
Intelligence is like piety, it's hard to define but we pretty much know it when we see it.
And why the hell would an artificial human work tirelessly 24/7 to build a smarter artificial human? What would its motivation be? And why would they be capable of building something smarter than their self? It doesn't follow. It's possible, but it doesn't follow.
The point is, sweetie, that intelligence has no track record of designing something more intelligent than itself. There's absolutely no reason whatsoever to think that there will be an explosion of intelligence. There's never been the first iterative step, so why would there be an expectation for not only the first step but an infinite number afterward that lead to godhood? Show me one intelligent being that has designed a more intelligent being, please. I beg you.
Designed was the word, not built. And sexual reproduction isn't exactly building unless you're playing semantic games.
There will be no intelligence explosion. A snail cannot design a smarter snail. Humanity has not yet designed a smarter human. Furthermore, all we know is that meat makes thinking brains. Computers just switch bits on and off, and certainly don't know what bits are or anything for that matter since they don't think.
Or you can just make your arm go to sleep then use it to rub one off.
Those are the three groups.
Actually, I thought the article would say that there were Christians in one group, Muslims in the second, Hindus and everyone else in the third. Of course Jews don't count as people.
Har har har har.
I feel dirty just thinking about that. It reminds me of the days where entire hard drives were displayed on Napster.
And you're sure you want to do that? First, it's possibly illegal. Second, it's a security nightmare. Third, you could set up a web server with an actual track record of security.
Ick.
That's because nothing gives a Slashdotter a hard-on quicker than the words "Opera" or "Linux".
So what? It's a somewhat slow web server. It's easy, guys. If you want to leave your home machine naked to the net, use real and tested server software. If you want to do all the tasks done by Unite but easier, get cheap or free web hosting and a Facebook page.
Take a web browser. Add a web server with a few built in software bits to make building a social site possible. Ta da! A game changer! Nope, crap. Most people won't get it. Most people don't leave their computers on 24/7. Most people who do leave their computers on 24/7 and who would run services on their home machine would want something more powerful while avoiding the privacy issues. It's a lame. It's craptastic. Sorry.
Someday someone will design a true p2p social networking system. Till then, the central server will be king.
No, I just think they're never going to be able to sell it. The Opera browser has always been C- to me due to the mediocre interace. I was happy with OmniWeb for a long time. Safari was OK. Now I'm a Firefox user. I don't care about the brand.
What the hell were they thinking? "We'll do something that people won't understand and won't like if they do understand."
Seriously, all our orifices are unique. Why not rectal probes?